Dataset Information

Multimethods study comparing the experiences of medical clinical academics with nurses, midwives and allied health professionals pursuing a clinical academic career.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to compare experiences of medical clinical academics (MCAs) with those of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) pursuing a clinical academic career.

Design

A multimethods approach was used to elicit qualitative data. Both sets of participants completed similar online surveys followed by in-depth interviews to explore emerging themes.

Setting

The research was conducted in the East Midlands of England, encompassing two Higher Education Institutions and four National Health Service Trusts.

Participants

Surveys were completed by 67 NMAHPs and 73 MCA trainees. Sixteen participants from each group were interviewed following a similar interview schedule.

Results

The survey data revealed notable differences in demographics of the two study populations, reflecting their different career structures. MCAs were younger and they all combined clinical and academic training, lengthening the time before qualification. In contrast, most NMAHPs had been in their clinical post for some years before embarking on a clinical academic pathway. Both routes had financial and personal repercussions and participants faced similar obstacles. However, there was also evidence of wide-ranging benefits from combining clinical and academic roles.

Conclusions

Variations in experiences between the two study populations highlight a need for a clear academic pathway for all health professionals, as well as sufficient opportunities post-PhD to enable clinical academics to fully use their dual skills.

SUBMITTER: Trusson D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8023736 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInvolvement in research activities is complex in pediatric nursing and allied health professionals (AHPs). It is important to understand which individual factors are associated with it to inform policy makers in promoting research.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted to describe the level of participation in research activities over the last ten years of nurses and AHPs working in a tertiary pediatric hospital. A large sample of nurses and AHPs working in an Italian academic tertiary pediatric hospital completed an online self-report questionnaire between June and December 2018. Three multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to predict participation in research projects, speaking at conferences, and writing scientific articles.ResultsOverall, data from 921 health professionals were analyzed (response rate = 66%), of which about 21% (n = 196) reported participating in a research project, while 33% (n = 297) had attended a scientific conference as a speaker, and 11% (n = 94) had written at least one scientific paper. Having a Master or a Regional Advanced Course, working as an AHP or a ward manager, as well as regularly reading scientific journals and participation in an internal hospital research group or attendance in a specific course about research in the hospital, significantly predicted participation in research projects, speaking at conferences and writing scientific papers. It is important to foster research interest and competencies among health professionals to improve participation in research projects, speaking at conferences, and writing scientific papers.ConclusionsOverall, we found a good level of attendance at conferences as speakers (33%), a moderate level of participation in research (21%), and low levels for writing scientific papers (11%). Our study highlighted the need to support participation in research activities among nurses and AHPs. Policymakers should identify strategies to promote research among nurses and AHPs, such as protected rewarded time for research, specific education, strengthened collaboration with academics, and financial support. Moreover, hospital managers should promote the development of research culture among health professionals, to improve their research competencies and evidence-based practice.

Project description:BackgroundMaintaining a health professional workforce in rural and remote areas poses a significant challenge internationally. A range of recruitment and retention strategies have had varying success and these are generally developed from the collective experience of all health professions, rather than targeted to professional groups with differing educational and support contexts. This review explores, compares and synthesises the evidence examining the experience of early career rural and remote allied health professionals and doctors to better understand both the profession specific, and common factors that influence their experience.MethodsQualitative studies that include early career allied health professionals' or doctors' experiences of working in rural or remote areas and the personal and professional factors that impact on this experience were considered. A systematic search was completed across five databases and three grey literature repositories to identify published and unpublished studies. Studies published since 2000 in English were considered. Studies were screened for inclusion and critically appraised by two independent reviewers. Data was extracted and assigned a level of credibility. Data synthesis adhered to the JBI meta-aggregative approach.ResultsOf the 1408 identified articles, 30 papers were eligible for inclusion, with one rated as low in quality and all others moderate or high quality. A total of 23 categories, 334 findings and illustrations were aggregated into three synthesised findings for both professional groups including: making a difference through professional and organisational factors, working in rural areas can offer unique and rewarding opportunities for early career allied health professionals and doctors, and personal and community influences make a difference. A rich dataset was obtained and findings illustrate similarities including the need to consider personal factors, and differences, including discipline specific supervision for allied health professionals and local supervision for doctors.ConclusionsStrategies to enhance the experience of both allied health professionals and doctors in rural and remote areas include enabling career paths through structured training programs, hands on learning opportunities, quality supervision and community immersion.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42021223187.

Project description:BackgroundSafe and timely access to effective and appropriate medication through primary care settings is a major concern for all countries addressing both acute and chronic disease burdens. Legislation for nurses and other professionals allied to medicine to prescribe exists in a minority of countries, with more considering introducing legislation. Although there is variation in the range of medicines permitted to be prescribed, questions remain as to the contribution prescribing by nurses and professionals allied to medicine makes to the care of patients in primary care and what is the evidence on which clinicians, commissioners of services and policy makers can consider this innovation.MethodsA integrative review of literature on non-medical prescribing in primary care was undertaken guided by dimensions of health care quality: effectiveness, acceptability, efficiency and access.Results19 papers of 17 empirical studies were identified which provided evidence of patient outcome of non medical prescribing in primary care settings. The majority were undertaken in the UK with only one each from the USA, Canada, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Only two studies investigated clinical outcomes of non-medical prescribing. Seven papers reported on qualitative designs and four of these had fewer than ten participants. Most studies reported that non medical prescribing was widely accepted and viewed positively by patients and professionals.ConclusionsPrimary health care is the setting where timely access to safe and appropriate medicines is most critical for the well-being of any population. The gradual growth over time of legislative authority and in the numbers of non-medical prescribers, particularly nurses, in some countries suggests that the acceptability of non-medical prescribing is based on the perceived value to the health care system as a whole. Our review suggests that there are substantial gaps in the knowledge base to help evidence based policy making in this arena. We suggest that future studies of non-medical prescribing in primary care focus on the broad range of patient and health service outcomes and include economic dimensions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) form a significant part of the healthcare workforce and have great potential to improve services through research and research-informed practice. However, there is a lack of tradition in research embedded in practice in these professional groups. Barriers include clinical caseload pressures, a lack of sustainable training and consequent lack of confidence in practitioners. Practice managers are ill-equipped to monitor and guide staff research development. The modern healthcare system is a multi-disciplinary environment focused on the needs of the patient. A common framework across all AHP disciplines, offering equality in research knowledge and skills and shared language, might be helpful in planning and developing clinical career pathways. Our aim is to develop a consolidated research framework to help AHPs to plan and guide research activity throughout their career. METHODS:The study was conducted in three phases. Phase one identified existing AHP research frameworks (AHPRF) through expert consultations and literature searches. Phase two involved framework analysis of the AHPRFs to develop a single consolidated framework. Phase three included a workshop with experts to validate and adapt the framework for practice. RESULTS:Nineteen AHPRFs were identified. A consolidated framework was shaped by analysis of the AHPRFs resulting in a consolidated framework of eight sections, each containing a series of statements. Each section relates to an analytic theme within the framework analysis, and the statements were based on sub-categories of themes. The final framework was further shaped by the phase three workshop into a set of 'stem' statements that can be adapted to reflect different levels of expertise and the inclusion of a set of guiding principles developed through expert consultation. CONCLUSION:The consolidated framework was entitled 'Shaping Better Practice Through Research: A Practitioner Framework' by stakeholders, thus emphasising its ambition to embed research activity into practice. It instigates a new perspective within AHP research by offering practitioners and managers a tool that can be applied across public, private, and voluntary settings for AHPs in all disciplines. Its ambition is to develop capacity in the AHPs that can undertake research to improve services and the health of service users.